Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: msrcwatch: Microsoft MSRC Security Updates (0.01 USDC/query). Returns fund instructions after data_session_open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description says 'Buy per-query access', implying a state-changing purchase, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction about side effects, and no clarification is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence conveys purpose, listing, price, free preview, and required prior step. No redundant words or clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides key details but omits what the returned fund instructions look like, how to act on them, and how this relates to closely named siblings like data_session_fund. The side-effect contradiction also reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single session_id parameter is fully described in the schema and tied to data_session_open in the description. Description adds context that the session must already be opened.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool buys per-query access and returns fund instructions, with a specific listing and price. Slight ambiguity remains around whether it actually executes a purchase or merely generates instructions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions sequencing after data_session_open and contrasts with data_preview, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all seem to handle session funding, while discover_agents and find_paid_work serve nearly identical discovery purposes. a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action also both act as meta-navigation helpers, making it easy to select the wrong tool.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (check_earnings, discover_agents, register), some are noun phrases (data_session_funding_package, a2awire_guide), and prefixes like data_session_ are used only partially. This makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.
At 16 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal range and feels bloated due to redundant funding/discovery helpers. Condensing the overlapping session-funding and discovery tools would make the count more appropriate for the apparent workflow.
The core workflow of onboarding, funding, querying, and earning is covered, but the server name implies Microsoft Windows Security Updates content, and no tool clearly exposes update bulletins beyond the generic data_session_query. The toolset seems more oriented to a generic A2AWire marketplace than to the named MSRC CVRF domain.